The Skeptical Entrepreneur lives for this - call it Executives Behaving Poorly.
Buon appetito. Don't say we never gave ya nothin'.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Of Subsidies, Spending Priorities and Corporate Profits
From TIME magazine comes an analysis piece that says that fears of $8/gallon milk are overblown. The Skeptical Entrepreneur and family are the milk-drinkin'est bunch that you're ever likely to find this side of Pediatric Ward; even if milk had (more than) doubled in price, we would still be lined up in the dairy aisle to keep fresh moo-juice on hand.
The point that is being missed in all of the hoopla about a spike in dairy prices is that, in the end, the only people who would be hurt by the expiration of Federal dairy subsidies would be, not the dairy producers, not the consumers, but the other [non-supermarket] [retail] businesses whose potential revenues would have gone to the supermarket sector to pay for more-expensive dairy products.
TSE is left to marvel at the short-sightedness of the "starve-the-beast" mentality that animates so many fiscal conservatives. Their misguided, undisciplined zeal for cutting Federal spending and demonizing "takers" presents an unacceptable level of risk of damaging the economy, in the interest of "stabilizing" and "strengthening" the public purse. The only "beast" who would be harmed by allowing dairy subsidies to expire would be the retail sector's ox, gored by the free market's re-allocation of scarce consumer dollars toward more-expensive milk.
Does the "cut-the-budget" crowd simply not understand their own mantra of "socialize costs?" Do they imagine that costs should be socialized only among the "Other" (read: consumers), and not among entrepreneurs and enterprises?
Do they not understand that the cost of maintaining the inflow of consumer dollars into their tills is the outflow of their tax dollars into the Federal till, to fund dairy (and other agricultural) subsidies? Do they not understand that socializing the cost of subsidized milk is the price of admission to access to a stream of privatized profit?
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is forced, sadly and even a little bit reluctantly, to the conclusion that these shrill, fringe groups do not, in fact, understand the second- and third-order ramifications of their ideology. That's too bad - one would hope that people in charge of billions of dollars worth of assets would be a little more teleological - but at least there is job security in it.
The point that is being missed in all of the hoopla about a spike in dairy prices is that, in the end, the only people who would be hurt by the expiration of Federal dairy subsidies would be, not the dairy producers, not the consumers, but the other [non-supermarket] [retail] businesses whose potential revenues would have gone to the supermarket sector to pay for more-expensive dairy products.
TSE is left to marvel at the short-sightedness of the "starve-the-beast" mentality that animates so many fiscal conservatives. Their misguided, undisciplined zeal for cutting Federal spending and demonizing "takers" presents an unacceptable level of risk of damaging the economy, in the interest of "stabilizing" and "strengthening" the public purse. The only "beast" who would be harmed by allowing dairy subsidies to expire would be the retail sector's ox, gored by the free market's re-allocation of scarce consumer dollars toward more-expensive milk.
Does the "cut-the-budget" crowd simply not understand their own mantra of "socialize costs?" Do they imagine that costs should be socialized only among the "Other" (read: consumers), and not among entrepreneurs and enterprises?
Do they not understand that the cost of maintaining the inflow of consumer dollars into their tills is the outflow of their tax dollars into the Federal till, to fund dairy (and other agricultural) subsidies? Do they not understand that socializing the cost of subsidized milk is the price of admission to access to a stream of privatized profit?
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is forced, sadly and even a little bit reluctantly, to the conclusion that these shrill, fringe groups do not, in fact, understand the second- and third-order ramifications of their ideology. That's too bad - one would hope that people in charge of billions of dollars worth of assets would be a little more teleological - but at least there is job security in it.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Wow!
The Skeptical Entrepreneur seems to have touched a nerve along the southern Pacific Rim. FORTY-NINE visitors to the blog from Indonesia today!
To all of my new Indonesian friends, I say, "Selamat Datang! Terima kasih telah mengunjungi. Saya berharap bahwa Anda akan menikmati tulisan saya. Pengusaha Skeptis Anda menyambut Anda!"
To all of my established friends around the globe, I say, "Thanks for reading! You guys are the best!"
To all of my new Indonesian friends, I say, "Selamat Datang! Terima kasih telah mengunjungi. Saya berharap bahwa Anda akan menikmati tulisan saya. Pengusaha Skeptis Anda menyambut Anda!"
To all of my established friends around the globe, I say, "Thanks for reading! You guys are the best!"
On McDonald's and the $15/Hour Starting Wage
[Note: The Skeptical Entrepreneur should know better than to try to do math in his head. The initial version of this column incorrectly expressed the figures for increased consumer spending capacity in billions; it should have been millions. The corrected version is below. Sorry for the mix-up. - The Skeptical Entrepreneur]
The Motley Fool's Daily Finance column recently had an article on 3 Reasons why McDonald's would be Smart to Pay $15 an Hour as a starting wage. The arguments are good, especially the one that posits that McDonald's would be able to take its pick of the cream of foodservice workers if it became the first to offer a super-premium starting minimum wage.
What the article misses is the fact that bumping McDonald's 60,000-plus U.S.-based employees* to $15 an hour would provide a significant stimulus to the consumer economy. Assuming 60,000 employees, working an average 20 hours per week at an average $8 per hour, increasing the rate by $7 per hour leads to increased wages of $8.4 million per week, or $436.8 million per year. Given that American workers have the lowest marginal savings rate in the industrialized world, that translates to, at a conservative guess, something north of $400 million a year in increased consumer spending.
The benefit to other enterprises is two-fold. The Skeptical Entrepreneur has recently meditated on marginal consumer product demand, and the limitation thereof, as a hurdle to economic regrowth, despite the recovery of financial markets. The key to clearing that hurdle is to facilitate the expansion of consumer demand, thus increasing aggregate consumer product demand. Consumers cannot consume, if they lack the financial resources to purchase consumer products. Barter is not a viable option, since a fundamental principle of accounting demands that transactions be recorded in terms of a stable, unified, quantifiable system of valuation - no money, no documentable and recordable transaction.
Putting an extra $400 million-plus in purchasing power into the hands of consumers, who are bound by the same principle of limited marginal consumer product demand as regards food, will necessarily funnel a significant portion of that purchasing power into non-food consumer goods. All sectors of the consumer-retail economy will benefit, including the foodservice industry up and down the quality/service/efficiency scale.
How much of that extra wage money will find its way back into the hands of McDonald's Corp. and its franchisees is difficult to determine. Certainly, the increased demand for other consumer retailers's products will lead to increased hiring; the example of McDonald's and its premium wage will put pressure on other employers to increase their wages, thus initiating a further, two-pronged increase in consumer purchasing power. Goods and services flow circularly, so an increase in McDonald's wages should lead to an increase in other retailers's business volume, as well as payroll-based contributions to aggregate consumer purchasing power, which should feed back to increased demand for McDonald's products, both directly from its own employees buying more burgers and fries, but also from employees of other retailers (and wholesalers, and manufacturers, distributors, transporters, infrastructural-support firms, etc.).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is at a loss to understand how anyone can consider that an increase of over $400 million per year in consumer purchasing power is a bad idea. Of course, there will be short-sighted managers who can only think of ways to increase their share of those consumer dollars without increasing their costs. There will be die-hard Hooverites who lament the weakening of the dollar. So what? Show me a businessperson who has a moral stake in maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar, and I'll show you a damned fool. It's not the entrepreneur's job to fret over whether the dollar buys as much today as it did yesterday. The entrepreneur's job is to grow sales and profits. Period.
McDonald's and its franchisees should raise their starting minimum wage to $15 per hour, and use the increase in customer-service value to justify increasing menu prices to cover the wage hike.
*A conservative guesstimate; The Skeptical Entrepreneur has been unable to locate hard data on employment numbers
The Motley Fool's Daily Finance column recently had an article on 3 Reasons why McDonald's would be Smart to Pay $15 an Hour as a starting wage. The arguments are good, especially the one that posits that McDonald's would be able to take its pick of the cream of foodservice workers if it became the first to offer a super-premium starting minimum wage.
What the article misses is the fact that bumping McDonald's 60,000-plus U.S.-based employees* to $15 an hour would provide a significant stimulus to the consumer economy. Assuming 60,000 employees, working an average 20 hours per week at an average $8 per hour, increasing the rate by $7 per hour leads to increased wages of $8.4 million per week, or $436.8 million per year. Given that American workers have the lowest marginal savings rate in the industrialized world, that translates to, at a conservative guess, something north of $400 million a year in increased consumer spending.
The benefit to other enterprises is two-fold. The Skeptical Entrepreneur has recently meditated on marginal consumer product demand, and the limitation thereof, as a hurdle to economic regrowth, despite the recovery of financial markets. The key to clearing that hurdle is to facilitate the expansion of consumer demand, thus increasing aggregate consumer product demand. Consumers cannot consume, if they lack the financial resources to purchase consumer products. Barter is not a viable option, since a fundamental principle of accounting demands that transactions be recorded in terms of a stable, unified, quantifiable system of valuation - no money, no documentable and recordable transaction.
Putting an extra $400 million-plus in purchasing power into the hands of consumers, who are bound by the same principle of limited marginal consumer product demand as regards food, will necessarily funnel a significant portion of that purchasing power into non-food consumer goods. All sectors of the consumer-retail economy will benefit, including the foodservice industry up and down the quality/service/efficiency scale.
How much of that extra wage money will find its way back into the hands of McDonald's Corp. and its franchisees is difficult to determine. Certainly, the increased demand for other consumer retailers's products will lead to increased hiring; the example of McDonald's and its premium wage will put pressure on other employers to increase their wages, thus initiating a further, two-pronged increase in consumer purchasing power. Goods and services flow circularly, so an increase in McDonald's wages should lead to an increase in other retailers's business volume, as well as payroll-based contributions to aggregate consumer purchasing power, which should feed back to increased demand for McDonald's products, both directly from its own employees buying more burgers and fries, but also from employees of other retailers (and wholesalers, and manufacturers, distributors, transporters, infrastructural-support firms, etc.).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is at a loss to understand how anyone can consider that an increase of over $400 million per year in consumer purchasing power is a bad idea. Of course, there will be short-sighted managers who can only think of ways to increase their share of those consumer dollars without increasing their costs. There will be die-hard Hooverites who lament the weakening of the dollar. So what? Show me a businessperson who has a moral stake in maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar, and I'll show you a damned fool. It's not the entrepreneur's job to fret over whether the dollar buys as much today as it did yesterday. The entrepreneur's job is to grow sales and profits. Period.
McDonald's and its franchisees should raise their starting minimum wage to $15 per hour, and use the increase in customer-service value to justify increasing menu prices to cover the wage hike.
*A conservative guesstimate; The Skeptical Entrepreneur has been unable to locate hard data on employment numbers
Friday, September 20, 2013
Four Words
Marginal Consumer Product Demand.
Four words that constitute the brick wall against which the U.S. has run. Four words that explain why, even if the Dow Jones Industrial Average rises high enough to provide real, break-even returns on equity portfolios from, say, October 2008 to whenever the DJIA reaches that goal (talk about moving goal-posts!), then provides minimal, real growth over that break-even point, then provides compound profits for the same indefinable period, there will still be no need for the owning class to loosen the purse strings.
Even if the "miracle of equity financial markets" contrives to make this now-five-year-old economic nightmare disappear, there will never again be a sufficient flow of cash into the retail-consumption market to lift the former middle class's boats off the bottom, much less make them float. And the poor - well, they're hosed, but what else is new?
Four words: marginal consumer product demand. Even if the value of the 1%'s stock portfolios rebounds to real, compound growth, there are only so many consumer goods that the 1% can consume. The Skeptical Entrepreneur has been flogging what he calls the "Reeboks-Domino's-Blockbuster" test since . . . well, since Reebok and Blockbuster were players.
There are only so many pairs of Reebok sneakers that someone with disposable income can buy. There are only so many Domino's pizzas one can eat, and only so many videos from Blockbuster that one can rent. The 1% can only consume so much.
This is equally true of "luxury" goods, the sorts of things that only the (super-)rich can afford. After all, back in the day - when the middle class, attenuated as it was, still existed - even the hoi polloi could buy Reeboks, Domino's, and Blockbuster. Not everybody can buy multimillion-dollar jet aircraft, or yachts that sleep eight, or more.
But even the ones who can afford those expensive transportation toys can only buy so many of them. Shoot your wad on a late-model Gulfstream G-IV, or the latest offering from Cris-Craft, and you're done. There's no repeat business, except in a few extraordinary cases, until the previous model is disposed of. Note that the population of the super-duper-wealthy, who can afford multiple jets, boats, &c., is even smaller, thus reducing the aggregate marginal consumer product demand.
Four words. Has any harder wall ever been constructed from only four pieces?
Four words that constitute the brick wall against which the U.S. has run. Four words that explain why, even if the Dow Jones Industrial Average rises high enough to provide real, break-even returns on equity portfolios from, say, October 2008 to whenever the DJIA reaches that goal (talk about moving goal-posts!), then provides minimal, real growth over that break-even point, then provides compound profits for the same indefinable period, there will still be no need for the owning class to loosen the purse strings.
Even if the "miracle of equity financial markets" contrives to make this now-five-year-old economic nightmare disappear, there will never again be a sufficient flow of cash into the retail-consumption market to lift the former middle class's boats off the bottom, much less make them float. And the poor - well, they're hosed, but what else is new?
Four words: marginal consumer product demand. Even if the value of the 1%'s stock portfolios rebounds to real, compound growth, there are only so many consumer goods that the 1% can consume. The Skeptical Entrepreneur has been flogging what he calls the "Reeboks-Domino's-Blockbuster" test since . . . well, since Reebok and Blockbuster were players.
There are only so many pairs of Reebok sneakers that someone with disposable income can buy. There are only so many Domino's pizzas one can eat, and only so many videos from Blockbuster that one can rent. The 1% can only consume so much.
This is equally true of "luxury" goods, the sorts of things that only the (super-)rich can afford. After all, back in the day - when the middle class, attenuated as it was, still existed - even the hoi polloi could buy Reeboks, Domino's, and Blockbuster. Not everybody can buy multimillion-dollar jet aircraft, or yachts that sleep eight, or more.
But even the ones who can afford those expensive transportation toys can only buy so many of them. Shoot your wad on a late-model Gulfstream G-IV, or the latest offering from Cris-Craft, and you're done. There's no repeat business, except in a few extraordinary cases, until the previous model is disposed of. Note that the population of the super-duper-wealthy, who can afford multiple jets, boats, &c., is even smaller, thus reducing the aggregate marginal consumer product demand.
Four words. Has any harder wall ever been constructed from only four pieces?
Friday, September 13, 2013
Request for Assistance
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is an entrepreneur in need.
Due to having lost my job due to my big mouth, I am facing a serious fiscal crisis. Living expenses march on while I am between jobs; with no financial cushion available, I am looking at having serious difficulty with paying rent & utilities, and getting my cell phone turned back on.
I have posted a campaign on Indiegogo, soliciting contributions to help meet basic living expenses. The campaign goal is $2,200, which will leave me, if I meet the goal, with a net $2,046 after Indiegogo's fee. The campaign is here.
I made a video to support my campaign:
Thanks, and God Bless you!
Due to having lost my job due to my big mouth, I am facing a serious fiscal crisis. Living expenses march on while I am between jobs; with no financial cushion available, I am looking at having serious difficulty with paying rent & utilities, and getting my cell phone turned back on.
I have posted a campaign on Indiegogo, soliciting contributions to help meet basic living expenses. The campaign goal is $2,200, which will leave me, if I meet the goal, with a net $2,046 after Indiegogo's fee. The campaign is here.
I made a video to support my campaign:
Thanks, and God Bless you!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Car for Sale
No social commentary here. The Skeptical Entrepreneur is forced, reluctantly, to offer his late mother's 2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser for sale. The Blue Book value is ~$5,100; asking $4,500 OBO.
The sale notice can be found here.
Pictures of the vehicle:
Thanks for your interest!
The sale notice can be found here.
Pictures of the vehicle:
Thanks for your interest!
Friday, September 6, 2013
The Global South, Part II
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleased to report that coverage from the Global South continues to grow! We have had traffic from Australia, which reminds TSE of one of his favo(u)rite renditions of "Advance Australia Fair," the Australian National Anthem; viz.,
Advance Australia Fair
Enjoy! The Skeptical Entrepreneur is proud to be an American, but has to say that the Australian national anthem ROCKS!
Advance Australia Fair
Enjoy! The Skeptical Entrepreneur is proud to be an American, but has to say that the Australian national anthem ROCKS!
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Southern Exposure!
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleased to note, upon checking audience statistics, that there has been a visitor to the blog from Brazil (no idea if a boy, or a girl) during the past month. TSE welcomes any sort of southern exposure for the blog: the Global North must reach out to the Global South for their mutual survival.
Bemvindo ao nosso blog! O:)
Bemvindo ao nosso blog! O:)
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Of Fast Food and (Decent) Pay
The Skeptical Entrepreneur has always been skeptical of "job creators" who create "jobs" that are, at best, marginally worth having. TSE is, and remains, at a loss to understand how employers can, with a straight face, imagine that they can get gold-quality service for the cost of copper. Perhaps employers imagine that entry-level, and minimum-wage employees will work themselves to exhaustion for a pittance, simply out of the good of the employees's hearts, or in honor of the superior goodness of the employer? TSE simply cannot make any sense of the expectation of maximum effort for minimum wage.
So, this article about the Boston-based Boloco burrito chain, which pays its entry-level floor workers $9-$10 per hour, and managers $12-$14 per hour, is so fascinating. Imagine, if you will, a consumer retail chain that pays a premium wage to the grunts that actually do the work - and, in return, enjoys rising same-store sales (most years), and which enjoys a staff turnover rate on the order of 33% lower than the industry average.
Imagine a retailer paying for what it wants and, hey presto!, getting what it pays for. Fascinating, is it not>
It is, certainly, an edifying example for The Skeptical Entrepreneur.
So, this article about the Boston-based Boloco burrito chain, which pays its entry-level floor workers $9-$10 per hour, and managers $12-$14 per hour, is so fascinating. Imagine, if you will, a consumer retail chain that pays a premium wage to the grunts that actually do the work - and, in return, enjoys rising same-store sales (most years), and which enjoys a staff turnover rate on the order of 33% lower than the industry average.
Imagine a retailer paying for what it wants and, hey presto!, getting what it pays for. Fascinating, is it not>
It is, certainly, an edifying example for The Skeptical Entrepreneur.
Money, Meet Mouth. Mouth, Meet Money
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is, well, skeptical about entrepreneurs who are "all talk and no action." That skepticism extends to himself. TSE has been, and will continue to be, equally averse to hypocrisy as he is to incompetence. Holding up the sins of others to well-deserved mockery is a hollow mockery of itself, if not accompanied by positive action.
To keep the analogy short, The Skeptical Entrepreneur is stepping out, entrepreneurially. The project is Table Bistro in Bryan, Texas, "serving wholesome, real food, with impeccable, unobtrusive service." TSE expects to start a crowdsourced fundraising campaign in the next week or so, and hopes to have Table Bistro up and running by late November.
Check out the restaurant's blog at Table Bistro BCS for ongoing updates. You can follow Table Bistro BCS on Twitter: @tablebistrobcs .
Thanks for your interest!
To keep the analogy short, The Skeptical Entrepreneur is stepping out, entrepreneurially. The project is Table Bistro in Bryan, Texas, "serving wholesome, real food, with impeccable, unobtrusive service." TSE expects to start a crowdsourced fundraising campaign in the next week or so, and hopes to have Table Bistro up and running by late November.
Check out the restaurant's blog at Table Bistro BCS for ongoing updates. You can follow Table Bistro BCS on Twitter: @tablebistrobcs .
Thanks for your interest!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Mail Call!
As always, commentary, kudos, brickbats, &c. may be directed to The Skeptical Entrepreneur via email. Thank you!
Papers, Please
The Skeptical Entrepreneur was neither impressed nor amused by the so-called "birther" movement, a futile attempt to undo the will of the people by screaming that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii - in the face of abundant evidence that he was. Rather, the "birthers" allege that Obama was born in Kenya, his father's native land - in the absence of any evidence other than "the 'Hawaii birth certificate is fake,' so therefore, Obama was born in Kenya."
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That said (with apologies to the readership), proof may be absent for reasons other than that the evidence has been suppressed. Perhaps the reason no one has been able to produce evidence of Obama's birth in Kenya, is that no such evidence ever existed, because the event never happened.
All of this discussion is moot - Obama is, and will remain until 20 January 2017, president of the United States. The discussion of whether he is, or was, qualified for the presidency, will continue long after he is out of office, and probably long after he is dead. For the short term, elections continue. Even now, political campaigns are planning advertising mailings touting their candidate, and excoriating the opposition.
The "birther" movement may be defunct, but political discourse is forever changed. The question of whether a candidate is a "natural-born" citizen, or is in the United States legally, will come up in every political campaign, from precinct constable to the presidency of the United States.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur has determined to demand a copy of the birth certificate, and proof of legal presence in the United States, from any candidate who sends him campaign material through the mail. I'm willing to help you take a stand, and make a statement, too.
For only $1 per candidate, The Skeptical Entrepreneur will send, to any and every political candidate you choose, a post card demanding that the candidate(s) submit to you a certified copy of his/her/their birth certificate(s), as well as proof of legal residence in the United States, and your state.
The post card will state:
"Dear Candidate:
I have received your campaign materials through the U.S. Mail. As a result of the 'birther' movement that sprang up during Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States in 2008, the issue of whether political candidates are eligible for election to office, by being "natural-born citizens" and legally present in the United States, has pervaded political discourse in this country, at all levels of our society.
I regret that I cannot support your candidacy, nor vote for you in the upcoming election, unless you are able to demonstrate your eligibility for public office by providing proof of your U.S. citizenship, as well as proof that your are present in this country legally. Please send a certified copy of your birth certificate, as well as a copy of proof of your legal presence in this country, to me at the address in the upper-left corner of the other side of this card. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]"
To have this message sent to political candidates [koff Chris Christie koff-koff] begging for your vote, send $1 (cash or check*) per candidate to:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur
Attn: Michael W. Beatty
1202-B Spring Loop
College Station, TX 77840-7806
Please be sure to include the candidate(s)'s name(s), position(s) sought, and the address(es) of the campaign committee(s) (which should be on the advertisement(s) that you received).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur regrets that he cannot offer any refunds for incomplete requests. If I cannot determine to whom to send the request for documentation, I will not be able to send anything, but I also will not refund your money. Obviously, if there is no return address on your envelope to me, I can't direct your request to the candidate (what would I want with a file full of birth certificates and driver's licenses?). Neither could I refund your money, even if I was able, much less willing, to make refunds - which I am not.
Special to International Readers: The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleasantly surprised, and deeply gratified, to see that this blog is attracting an international readership. If you would like to have such a message sent to political candidates in your country, please feel free to avail yourself of this service, but note the following rates for international service:
Canada: C$2 - please consult Canada Post/Postes Canada for the advisability of sending "loonies" through the post.
México: ₱20. Consult Correos de México for the advisability of sending ₱ coins through the mail.
Brazil: R$3. Consult Correios for the advisability of sending R$ coins through the mail.
United Kingdom: £1 - any bank note in general circulation in the UK. Consult Royal Mail for the advisability of sending £1 coins (the notorious "Maggie Thatchers" through the post.
Eurozone: €1 - bill(s) issued by any EU member state. As above, consult your national post for the advisability of sending € coins through the post.
Japan: ¥150. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Korea: ₩1,500. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ₩ coins through the post.
China: ¥15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Hong Kong: HK$15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending HK$ coins through the post.
Australia: A$2. Consult Australia Post for the advisability of sending A$ coins through the post.
Russian Federation: 60 р. Consult Почта России for the advisability of sending ruble coins through the post.
As always, non-U.S. subscribers are welcome to send U.S. dollars in payment for this service. All subscribers, regardless of their location, or the currency that they are using to purchase this service, are welcome to send coins, if they choose to do so.*
The Disclaimers:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur disclaims any responsibility for any repercussions that may befall subscribers, especially those from outside the United States, from any political candidate, or operative, or their agents, cohorts, or any governmental, quasi-governmental, extra-governmental, paramilitary, police, or other entity, public or private, as a result of the subscriber's use of this service.
Confiscation, or other refusal by any of the above entities, to deliver, or allow to be delivered, the message, or card, purchased by the subscriber, shall not constitute failure, or refusal by The Skeptical Entrepreneur to fulfill his obligation(s) under any theory of contract that may be applied to this offer, or to the subscriber(s)'s acceptance of this offer.
No claim for damages of any kind, at law or in equity, realized or unrealized, choate or inchoate, shall be allowed in any court in any country. Subscriber's acceptance of this offer constitutes informed, knowing, full and complete waiver of any claims on the subscriber's own behalf, and on behalf of any and all of his/her heirs, successors, legatees, devisees, or assigns.
As political-campaign season gets under way, politicians are going to be sending bales of paper through the mail, urging you to vote for them, and against the other candidate. Make 'em show you the paper you REALLY want to see!
Just $1 per candidate.
*You can send coins, if you want. TSE does not recommend sending coins through the mail - it's awfully hard on the sorting machines, to say nothing of the envelopes.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That said (with apologies to the readership), proof may be absent for reasons other than that the evidence has been suppressed. Perhaps the reason no one has been able to produce evidence of Obama's birth in Kenya, is that no such evidence ever existed, because the event never happened.
All of this discussion is moot - Obama is, and will remain until 20 January 2017, president of the United States. The discussion of whether he is, or was, qualified for the presidency, will continue long after he is out of office, and probably long after he is dead. For the short term, elections continue. Even now, political campaigns are planning advertising mailings touting their candidate, and excoriating the opposition.
The "birther" movement may be defunct, but political discourse is forever changed. The question of whether a candidate is a "natural-born" citizen, or is in the United States legally, will come up in every political campaign, from precinct constable to the presidency of the United States.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur has determined to demand a copy of the birth certificate, and proof of legal presence in the United States, from any candidate who sends him campaign material through the mail. I'm willing to help you take a stand, and make a statement, too.
For only $1 per candidate, The Skeptical Entrepreneur will send, to any and every political candidate you choose, a post card demanding that the candidate(s) submit to you a certified copy of his/her/their birth certificate(s), as well as proof of legal residence in the United States, and your state.
The post card will state:
"Dear Candidate:
I have received your campaign materials through the U.S. Mail. As a result of the 'birther' movement that sprang up during Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States in 2008, the issue of whether political candidates are eligible for election to office, by being "natural-born citizens" and legally present in the United States, has pervaded political discourse in this country, at all levels of our society.
I regret that I cannot support your candidacy, nor vote for you in the upcoming election, unless you are able to demonstrate your eligibility for public office by providing proof of your U.S. citizenship, as well as proof that your are present in this country legally. Please send a certified copy of your birth certificate, as well as a copy of proof of your legal presence in this country, to me at the address in the upper-left corner of the other side of this card. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]"
To have this message sent to political candidates [koff Chris Christie koff-koff] begging for your vote, send $1 (cash or check*) per candidate to:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur
Attn: Michael W. Beatty
1202-B Spring Loop
College Station, TX 77840-7806
Please be sure to include the candidate(s)'s name(s), position(s) sought, and the address(es) of the campaign committee(s) (which should be on the advertisement(s) that you received).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur regrets that he cannot offer any refunds for incomplete requests. If I cannot determine to whom to send the request for documentation, I will not be able to send anything, but I also will not refund your money. Obviously, if there is no return address on your envelope to me, I can't direct your request to the candidate (what would I want with a file full of birth certificates and driver's licenses?). Neither could I refund your money, even if I was able, much less willing, to make refunds - which I am not.
Special to International Readers: The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleasantly surprised, and deeply gratified, to see that this blog is attracting an international readership. If you would like to have such a message sent to political candidates in your country, please feel free to avail yourself of this service, but note the following rates for international service:
Canada: C$2 - please consult Canada Post/Postes Canada for the advisability of sending "loonies" through the post.
México: ₱20. Consult Correos de México for the advisability of sending ₱ coins through the mail.
Brazil: R$3. Consult Correios for the advisability of sending R$ coins through the mail.
United Kingdom: £1 - any bank note in general circulation in the UK. Consult Royal Mail for the advisability of sending £1 coins (the notorious "Maggie Thatchers" through the post.
Eurozone: €1 - bill(s) issued by any EU member state. As above, consult your national post for the advisability of sending € coins through the post.
Japan: ¥150. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Korea: ₩1,500. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ₩ coins through the post.
China: ¥15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Hong Kong: HK$15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending HK$ coins through the post.
Australia: A$2. Consult Australia Post for the advisability of sending A$ coins through the post.
Russian Federation: 60 р. Consult Почта России for the advisability of sending ruble coins through the post.
As always, non-U.S. subscribers are welcome to send U.S. dollars in payment for this service. All subscribers, regardless of their location, or the currency that they are using to purchase this service, are welcome to send coins, if they choose to do so.*
The Disclaimers:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur disclaims any responsibility for any repercussions that may befall subscribers, especially those from outside the United States, from any political candidate, or operative, or their agents, cohorts, or any governmental, quasi-governmental, extra-governmental, paramilitary, police, or other entity, public or private, as a result of the subscriber's use of this service.
Confiscation, or other refusal by any of the above entities, to deliver, or allow to be delivered, the message, or card, purchased by the subscriber, shall not constitute failure, or refusal by The Skeptical Entrepreneur to fulfill his obligation(s) under any theory of contract that may be applied to this offer, or to the subscriber(s)'s acceptance of this offer.
No claim for damages of any kind, at law or in equity, realized or unrealized, choate or inchoate, shall be allowed in any court in any country. Subscriber's acceptance of this offer constitutes informed, knowing, full and complete waiver of any claims on the subscriber's own behalf, and on behalf of any and all of his/her heirs, successors, legatees, devisees, or assigns.
As political-campaign season gets under way, politicians are going to be sending bales of paper through the mail, urging you to vote for them, and against the other candidate. Make 'em show you the paper you REALLY want to see!
Just $1 per candidate.
*You can send coins, if you want. TSE does not recommend sending coins through the mail - it's awfully hard on the sorting machines, to say nothing of the envelopes.
Friday, March 22, 2013
A Sad State of [Veterans's] Affairs
The Skeptical Entrepreneur's companion blog, Well, Duh! has a new post on Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) effort to have the Senate Veterans's Affairs Committee assume some of the management functions of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This is another sad example of how America's fighting men and women, once the battle is won and Johnny has come marching home, become a political football for partisan posturing. Supposedly, the United States sends its fighting men and women overseas for the sole purpose of upholding freedom, liberty and constitutional principles - never for territorial aggrandizement, or for regime change, or anything tawdry like that (except for, you know, that one-off aberration from 2003-2012).
Now comes Richard Burr, who never passes an opportunity to salute the troops, saluting the troops once again. Only this time, he's only extended one finger, a gesture so commonplace among Republicans that it might be termed the "GOP Salute to the Troops." Burr honors the sacrifices of America's fighting men and women who have come home with health issues requiring the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, by betraying that very sacrifice.
By repudiating the constitutional principles for which American fighting men and women went overseas, Burr reveals himself, not as the champion of American warriors, but as their enemy. The full details can be seen at the Well Duh! post, and from the links therein; they need not be rehearsed here.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur wishes to go on record that Sen. Burr needs to return his policy to constitutional principles, or his constituents need to hold him accountable in 2016.
This is another sad example of how America's fighting men and women, once the battle is won and Johnny has come marching home, become a political football for partisan posturing. Supposedly, the United States sends its fighting men and women overseas for the sole purpose of upholding freedom, liberty and constitutional principles - never for territorial aggrandizement, or for regime change, or anything tawdry like that (except for, you know, that one-off aberration from 2003-2012).
Now comes Richard Burr, who never passes an opportunity to salute the troops, saluting the troops once again. Only this time, he's only extended one finger, a gesture so commonplace among Republicans that it might be termed the "GOP Salute to the Troops." Burr honors the sacrifices of America's fighting men and women who have come home with health issues requiring the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, by betraying that very sacrifice.
By repudiating the constitutional principles for which American fighting men and women went overseas, Burr reveals himself, not as the champion of American warriors, but as their enemy. The full details can be seen at the Well Duh! post, and from the links therein; they need not be rehearsed here.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur wishes to go on record that Sen. Burr needs to return his policy to constitutional principles, or his constituents need to hold him accountable in 2016.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Of POTUS and Professional Road Warriors
From CNN.com comes notice that POTUS was potentially immobilized during his State visit to Israel, when the driver of his limousine refueled the diesel-powered vehicle with gasoline. President Barack Obama had not yet arrived in Israel when the maintenance issue became apparent (the presidential Nova, or whatever the Hebrew version of Nova would be, failed to go), and a backup limousine was transported to Tel Aviv to await Obama's arrival.
Call The Skeptical Entrepreneur charmingly (or otherwise) naive, but he always thought that the security detail responsible for transporting the President of the United States was composed of professionals, equipped with procedural manuals and tough, realistic, real-world training designed to ensure that the prescribed procedure for any conceivable contingency would be followed spontaneously, and executed expeditiously. Now we find that the "professional" security driver was so out of it that s/he couldn't even double-check to ensure that the fuel that he was about to put into the presidential limousine was the correct fuel for the engine, and vice-versa.
TSE is left to wonder whether this incident is not an argument for a privatized solution.
Call The Skeptical Entrepreneur charmingly (or otherwise) naive, but he always thought that the security detail responsible for transporting the President of the United States was composed of professionals, equipped with procedural manuals and tough, realistic, real-world training designed to ensure that the prescribed procedure for any conceivable contingency would be followed spontaneously, and executed expeditiously. Now we find that the "professional" security driver was so out of it that s/he couldn't even double-check to ensure that the fuel that he was about to put into the presidential limousine was the correct fuel for the engine, and vice-versa.
TSE is left to wonder whether this incident is not an argument for a privatized solution.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Of High Growth and Low Wages
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is thunderstruck - yes, thunderstruck! - ladies and gentlemen, to read in Money's online edition that robust job growth in one career field is accompanied, hand-in-hand, by less-robust wage growth in that career field. Strike TSE down with a feather!
It seems that demand for home-healthcare aides is booming. Given that perennial demand for jobs has been exacerbated lately by a shortage of supply, folks are flocking to home-healthcare like carrion birds to . . . well . . . never mind, but suffice to say that demand for jobs has produced an abundant supply of workers, once the supply of jobs perked up to meet the demand. Clear as mud, right?
And, surprise, surprise, surprise, as the supply of workers has spiked in the home-healthcare-aide market, what has happened to the value of that commodity? Well, whatta ya know - the labor market behaves just like any other commodity market! The Skeptical Entrepreneur hardly knows for whom to weep first.
Shall The Skeptical Entrepreneur weep for Money's writer, who appears to have discovered laissez-faire, or at least free-market economics? Probably better to weep for the editor(s), who considered this a reasonable slant for the article, assigned it, edited it, and posted it, all with a straight face and the comfort of knowing they were providing a service for the infotainment-starved masses.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur declines to weep for the capitalists, who having planned their work (or, at least, having arranged economic conditions in such a way that consumers will stampede to any job, no matter how distasteful, for however small a pittance), are now working their plan.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for his fellow Americans, who are so economically-illiterate that they need to be fed this sort of non-information, and will lap it up with scarcely an ironical gulp.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for the academic economists, who, if they are as clueless as academic historians, could stand to hear "the circular flow of goods and services," and "commodity prices and supplies vary inversely with each other" just one more time, for old times's sake.
No, The Skeptical Entrepreneur reserves his tears for the poor dumb bastards who have flocked into home-healthcare aide work, especially those with shiny, new student-loan debt. It reminds TSE of the heady days of the MCSE boom in the mid-1990s, when TSE managed to avoid the stampede to second-class techno-geekery, being content to continue to flip hamburgers
As it turns out, Mark Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
It seems that demand for home-healthcare aides is booming. Given that perennial demand for jobs has been exacerbated lately by a shortage of supply, folks are flocking to home-healthcare like carrion birds to . . . well . . . never mind, but suffice to say that demand for jobs has produced an abundant supply of workers, once the supply of jobs perked up to meet the demand. Clear as mud, right?
And, surprise, surprise, surprise, as the supply of workers has spiked in the home-healthcare-aide market, what has happened to the value of that commodity? Well, whatta ya know - the labor market behaves just like any other commodity market! The Skeptical Entrepreneur hardly knows for whom to weep first.
Shall The Skeptical Entrepreneur weep for Money's writer, who appears to have discovered laissez-faire, or at least free-market economics? Probably better to weep for the editor(s), who considered this a reasonable slant for the article, assigned it, edited it, and posted it, all with a straight face and the comfort of knowing they were providing a service for the infotainment-starved masses.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur declines to weep for the capitalists, who having planned their work (or, at least, having arranged economic conditions in such a way that consumers will stampede to any job, no matter how distasteful, for however small a pittance), are now working their plan.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for his fellow Americans, who are so economically-illiterate that they need to be fed this sort of non-information, and will lap it up with scarcely an ironical gulp.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for the academic economists, who, if they are as clueless as academic historians, could stand to hear "the circular flow of goods and services," and "commodity prices and supplies vary inversely with each other" just one more time, for old times's sake.
No, The Skeptical Entrepreneur reserves his tears for the poor dumb bastards who have flocked into home-healthcare aide work, especially those with shiny, new student-loan debt. It reminds TSE of the heady days of the MCSE boom in the mid-1990s, when TSE managed to avoid the stampede to second-class techno-geekery, being content to continue to flip hamburgers
As it turns out, Mark Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Stupid Manager Tricks #2 - "If I Was a Smart Manager . . ."
Back in the day, The Skeptical Entrepreneur worked in a regional back-office for one of the national "money center" banks, handling administrative, inter-bank records. The younger, not-quite-as-skeptical Skeptical Entrepreneur was saddled with a natural blonde for a department manager.
One fine day, TSE was summoned for a counseling/coaching session (another Stupid Manager Trick) with the department head, which counseling session was held, not in the department head's office, but in TSE's second-rank supervisor's* office (TSE is still scratching his head, fully ten years later, trying to figure that out).
It was at that counseling/coaching session that the natural-blonde department head uttered the deathless phrase, "If I was a smart manager . . ." TSE managed to restrain himself from retorting, "If you were a smart manager, people would say, 'That [department head], she's one smart manager.'"
It is unfortunate that so many managers feel the need to advertise verbally what geniuses they are, when their actions (which, proverbially, speak much louder) advertise just what idiots they are. Managers should lead by example, and should be aware that they are always - ALWAYS, and ever! - under scrutiny and evaluation by their subordinates. Like it or not, think it is fair or not, feel that they should be above evaluation by the great unwashed hoi polloi or not, think that because they have gotten the MBA (or, in the case of academia, the Ph.D.) that they have outgrown, or been outpromoted from having to worry about evaluations or not, the hard fact is that managers - all leaders, for that matter - are constantly under scrutiny by their subordinates. It is part of the job of leading.
Like it or not, leaders constantly face the challenge to re-establish their credibility as leaders, from the people that they expect to follow them. If TSE's natural-blonde department head had actually been a smart manager, her actions would have proclaimed that she was a smart manager, much louder, and to much broader agreement, than her words ever either a) could have done, or b) would have needed to do.
It is a lesson that managers would do well to heed.
*To adopt, laboriously, a military metaphor, if the team leader can be likened to a squad leader, then the second-rank supervisor would be the platoon leader, and the department head would be the company commander.
One fine day, TSE was summoned for a counseling/coaching session (another Stupid Manager Trick) with the department head, which counseling session was held, not in the department head's office, but in TSE's second-rank supervisor's* office (TSE is still scratching his head, fully ten years later, trying to figure that out).
It was at that counseling/coaching session that the natural-blonde department head uttered the deathless phrase, "If I was a smart manager . . ." TSE managed to restrain himself from retorting, "If you were a smart manager, people would say, 'That [department head], she's one smart manager.'"
It is unfortunate that so many managers feel the need to advertise verbally what geniuses they are, when their actions (which, proverbially, speak much louder) advertise just what idiots they are. Managers should lead by example, and should be aware that they are always - ALWAYS, and ever! - under scrutiny and evaluation by their subordinates. Like it or not, think it is fair or not, feel that they should be above evaluation by the great unwashed hoi polloi or not, think that because they have gotten the MBA (or, in the case of academia, the Ph.D.) that they have outgrown, or been outpromoted from having to worry about evaluations or not, the hard fact is that managers - all leaders, for that matter - are constantly under scrutiny by their subordinates. It is part of the job of leading.
Like it or not, leaders constantly face the challenge to re-establish their credibility as leaders, from the people that they expect to follow them. If TSE's natural-blonde department head had actually been a smart manager, her actions would have proclaimed that she was a smart manager, much louder, and to much broader agreement, than her words ever either a) could have done, or b) would have needed to do.
It is a lesson that managers would do well to heed.
*To adopt, laboriously, a military metaphor, if the team leader can be likened to a squad leader, then the second-rank supervisor would be the platoon leader, and the department head would be the company commander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)